Pliny

Sorry, I thought you were asking for some government help, handouts in the form of protection from foreign investors - sort of having all Canadian corporations emulating Bombardier. It's the ideal solution to your problem. The best scenario is where everyone wins. But the reality is it takes ingenuity, innovation and creativity to stay on top. Not whining and running to Daddy. So grow up and use your head not some law enforcing your right to make a profit over someone else. It seems people that complain about others making a profit don't seem to realize they are living off the profits of others.

So "assimilation" is an ugly word now. Well, assimilation means a culture can retain it's heritage among those interested in retaining it. If the UN had it's way then cannibalism, headshrinking, and scalping would be protected cultural activities and they would be fighting assimilation by appealing to government to enshrine their activities in law. No culture will tolerate force to change it but sometimes it is necessary to the protection of life, a far more important cause than culture which is but a passing ship in the water. You need to really get over the past and quit hoping to live off the avails of others. There is no sense in creating a parasitic culture within a culture. Especially since most cultures pass with time - being parasitic you will pass along with them, and if they cater to parasites the life will go out of them quite quickly. Help them or get out of the way. Am I asking you to lay down and die as a culture? That could be your perception but I am asking you to be part of the future in the only way we can possibly create a future of co-operation together by being equal and respecting each other. Your beef is with government, the agency that you think is even today committing "cultural genocide", in spite of the fact multiculturalism is, sadly, in my view, now a part of its policy. I myself cringe when I see the Government of Canada crediting itself with "allowing" the existence of different cultures through it's benevolence and compassion for humanity. Puke! Excuse me! Gotta go!

I agree it is up to them to decide. From what I see, the status quo is being challenged - by natives themselves, so there is a movement between those currently at the helm to solidify their positions. So, forced assimilation is genocide. I can almost agree with that, but not quite if the term genocide is to retain its significance, and that is the death of the individuals who make up the culture. The use of force is the problem in a lot of cases which is why governments exist. It is the only agency that can legally use force or designate the use of force. A law to encourage people of different cultures to remain divided and completely separate is a use of force that endorses future conflict. Assimilation should not be forced and if force is used it never results in assimilation, as is evident in Canada. Forced assimilation is an oxymoron. Resentment is the result not assimilation. Cultures will assimilate naturally when they interact, each one adding their own input to create a new culture together. What moves us into the future is what is generally adopted by new generations and what remains of the past is held onto by the older generation until the blend is seamless.

No. How could it do that? What could turn Canada into a third world country is an inability to safely invest in it. It can't hurt it. Sounds like genocide to me, better get jennie on that one. Bombardier

And what is best for aboriginal communities besides extracting largesse from the rest of the population of the nation? And is assimilation the same as genocide?

The key element is murder. You probably don't differentiate between "murder" and "killing" either, nor does the UN it seems. We could, if you want to interpret the UN's terms as you do, say that the there is definite intent to replace the Judeo-Christian North American culture extant today. You wouldn't be inciting that would you? The UN is a rather useless organization which we would all do better to ignore and let pass on. Especially in light of the recent scandals that have originated there. It seems to be a place to skim money from governmentally designed programs and grant privilege to a cabal of insiders. Let me ask jennie, if you consider assimilation the same as genocide?

The key element of genocide is murder.

So that makes you no longer an economic novice. I get that you feel hurt. The answer lies in what is the governments purpose. It must be perceived to fulfill it's purpose but it seeks to end it's obligations as regards the matter. A good start to what? If governments are promising to do something and are doing nothing then vote for a government that is honest and promises to do nothing. Listen. This issue is a deep-seated personal concern for you. I am of the opinion that you are the same as I am as an individual and do not consider you my enemy. That you disagree with my opinion and hold that you should be and should remain different and be treated differently by government is asking that you remain in conflict with all who would like to include you as being their equal under the law. You however must see some benefit in remaining different and separate, perhaps that is the government's error. I merely would like to point out that, if you look at what that position has won you, maintaining it can only exacerbate the already horrible conditions a lot of natives live in. I would recommend joining Canada not fighting it.

The fight for the right to vote was not entirely about the right to vote but the right to be recognized as persons under the law. Women were not considered persons, nor were blacks at certain times in the past. It was required that the definition of the term "persons" be changed to include women and blacks in order to grant them equality under the law. It was not an injustice before that as it was generally agreed that women were not persons. In hindsight, we today view it as an injustice. It would be an injustice if it occurred today that a woman was refused the opportunity to vote on the basis of her gender. It was not an injustice prior to their inclusion under the definition of "person". It was the way society was just as slavery was accepted as a part of society. It was not illegal and it was not considered unjust. It was how things were. Granting the right of women to be included as persons under the law was not necessarily an inevitability and if they had remained outside the definition it would not be an injustice today if they were not considered persons under the law. It was societies definition and perception of a person that had to change to be inclusive before laws could apply to them. Prior to the point where women and blacks were considered persons it was not unjust to treat them as chattel under the law. In hindsight we can say it was unjust but that was not the perception at the time. As an analogy, the discovery of bacteria by Louis Pasteur brought new understanding and a change in human sanitary habits. We cannot say that prior to the implementation of these sanitary habits individuals were irresponsibly causing disease. And no one does because the information was not known or obvious to anyone. The obviousness today that women and blacks are persons was not the understanding at the time prior to their inclusion under the definition of person, it was considered by some that that perception needed to change and they fought for and won agreement to be included as persons. Thinking anything other than that women and blacks are persons would be considered today sheer lunacy, and the consideration and perception held prior of them not being persons seems impossible to conceive. When it is stated that a person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It means that no one has the right to end or take away, or threaten to end or take away your life, your liberty or your pursuit of happiness. It does not mean you are entitled to be provided anything at all except that you be secure in your person and property. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not something someone owes you. It is your right, you have it, and no one is allowed to take it away. It is not a guarantee of food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, or anything material - especially from government. I don't know if you, American woman, get that distinction. Government cannot provide any largesse without first extracting it from someone else which is totally unfair and totally unequal treatment under the law. If it proceeds to act in such manner it can no longer deliver it's primary mandate, which is justice and the sanctity of person and property can no longer be guaranteed because it will enact legislation granting itself the right to the property of it's citizens.

Glad you checked that out. One question though. Why start with critiques from mainstream economists? If I wished to understand you, I would not read Riverwind's critique. Sorry, I do not believe it is justice you seek. It seems to me to be some sort of revenge. So you think the government wasted the time and the money? I can agree with that. Honouring treaty and traditional land rights is why you find yourself where you are. You would do better to vote for them to do nothing. You are asking them to continue to spoon feed you. I am most certain they will oblige as much as I object to them treating any "special interest" like irresponsible children demanding their allowance.

Are we supposed to watch the CBC now?

The whole idea of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was to establish a form of government where power could not be concentrated in the hands of a few and become a tyranny to its citizens, entirely unlike then extant European forms of government, with unfair tariffs and taxation that were just meant to fill the coffers of the British crown. American woman: You said that a person who is sick could not pursue happiness. Their pursuit is becoming healthy which would bring them happiness. I am certain the government should not force him to pursue that goal if he does not desire it nor should the government provide it or if he has more important issues he would rather pursue he should be able to do so. It is society's mandate, not that of the governments, to co-operate and establish society and the individual should have the freedom and liberty to decide what he pursue for his happiness. What you are saying basically is because a person is not healthy the government should grant him health care. What about others? Because they are poor the government should sustain them? To be equal and fair to its citizens, what should it do for others? Government only taxes and legislates, which it then enforces, if it provides largesse or benefit to anyone it creates conflict and inequality. You and many others have the mistaken concept that government should "make" everyone equal which must, by definition, benefit some at the mandatory expense of others. It would be fine if government could make everyone equal to the highest common denominator but it can't it can only make everyone equal to the lowest common denominator by mandatorily redistributing wealth. If someone has a dream of owning a Hummer today are you going to take away his pursuit of happiness? The government should not legislate Hummers out of existence and I think you would be appalled if it did. However, society today frowns upon the use of such vehicles as they are not environmentally friendly. Many, because of the consideration of environment, will modify their goals, some won't, should it be legislated that owning a Hummer is illegal because society thinks it is detrimental to the environment? In other words, should force be applied in this instance for the greater good? Or can the person modify his goals through reason in considering the greater good. Most people do care about the greater good and consider it in the pursuit of their happiness no legislation being necessary. Many people know what's good for us and insist upon telling us. Some insist upon forcing us to accept their wisdom and there is only one way to do that - through law and so they pursue what will make them happy and lobby for their special interest to be use force against any opposition to their view of the world.

My view is mostly from Libertarian principles and the Austrian theory of economics. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and/or the International tribunal will provide evidence of what? That man's inhumanity to man does indeed exist? We know that already. We need to know how to prevent it in the future. What is being suggested by this tribunal process is how to make hay of man's inhumanity to man and not resolve a thing regarding the real issue. As for living up to treaty responsibilities. You can't continue to build houses every couple of years just to have them torn down and used as firewood in the winter. The government is running out of ways to "do-good". If natives are lucky the government will give up trying to be "helpful".

There is something wrong with legislating multiculturalism. A society that is inclusive must be multicultural by nature. If it is exclusive it will legislate culture, providing largesse for some cultures and penalizing others. WE find today in Canada All manner of laws to make cultures equal. In a natural evolving society any turn the majority decides to take does not mean minorities are forced to go along. They decide for themselves if they wish to contribute to the majority evolving culture or get left behind like Mennonites, or establish their own communities such as in Toronto. It is a thoroughly divisive process to legislate culture. There will of course be division among cultures naturally but they will eventually blend if they aren't all encouraged to maintain separate identities, and why should that scenario exist in a nation? Immigration policies contribute to making all manner of cultures equal as well. When in Rome do as the Romans would be a more workable creed. Whatever people in Canada are doing do as they do. If they are all being assimilated by Quebec, or by Natives then so be it. They can preserve their culture dependent upon how important it is to them and not because some do-gooder feels the disappearance of earthen huts built by European settlers on the prairies as part of a culture is a loss society cannot bear and they must be legislated into existence and preserved forever more. Who wants to live in a teepee these days? It's ok as a novelty but when that wears off give me a place with plumbing, heating and electricity. I don't think anyone would be denied the right to live in a tepee if they so desired, go ahead, but what for? Living the simple life would perhaps be the only attraction to that, in my view.

Proof? The data is in his university thesis per the Western Standard. And yes I do know such views were commonplace at that time. I was of course inferring that men considered to be of superior intellect can have wrong ideas. Because the views were commonplace is not a reason for people to have accepted them, especially men considered to be of superior intellect.

Did you win a lottery or something? Are you in a bracket or group that is exempt from income tax? Your understanding of what has been agreed to in this discussion, basically that there is only one taxpayer, the individual, must have escaped you.

The finer point of "someone else's money" in a socialized healthcare, or any socialized plan for that matter, is that it is mandatory to contribute to whether or not you approve. I myself, am not a big supporter of western medicine and feel it contributes to our poor health. Naturopathy would be more along the lines of something of which I would be more supportive. But the narrow almost myopic course of allopathic medicine as exists in North America is not, in my view, healthy. Nor is a single education beyond teaching the elementary tools of reading, writing and arithmetic. Today public education doesn't teach a child to look for himself or think for himself. It tells him what to think. I can't support that either. Ideologically, pooling our resources for something like health care appears to be a good thing. Looking at it from strictly that angle it is hard to argue against. Heaven is also hard to argue against from an ideological stand as well but when you really think of everything being perfect what would there be to do? Think of that in terms of eternity! No health care or education is necessary - your thoughts would be along the lines of, "just let me die and escape this hell - Pul-l-ease!" Someone may think that smokers should forgo their right to health care. Others think people that don't eat right should pay more for health care. Some think that those with dangerous hobbies, such as mountain climbing or skiing, should pay more. Some people think they should pay less. It becomes no longer equal or universal and you may as well return to everyone paying their own way. It is hard to make the change back because now some consumers and the whole delivery industry is dependent upon the institution for their livelihood. Life may be an unalienable right but the government or State cannot guarantee you will have one and more often than not dictates what your life will be as well as what liberties you will have. I am certain that right now happiness is being doled out at the welfare office as we speak so no need to pursue it being as it is guaranteed. The State cannot give you life, liberty and happiness nor can it guarantee it. If it could we would be in that contemptible place earlier mentioned called heaven. All that it can guarantee is that it will attempt to allow you the ability to pursue happiness, life and attempt to protect your liberty so life and happiness can be pursued as you perceive it. If you feel you would like them to provide you health care and education and that would make you happy you are free to do so. Most people in Canada do agree with you but never give up on the pursuit of happiness because they find it has once again eluded them. I think you will find happiness a fleeting thing that occurs when you accomplish something and disappears shortly after - meaning it is necessary for you to accomplish something else to return to a state of happiness. The journey there is often not happy.

I agree with this summation as closer to the probable truth. Basing it upon a knowledge that most individuals attempt to improve the conditions in their lives, not just for themselves, but for those involved in their lives, any departure form that is irrational or criminal. That people attempt help, out of a "know-best" attitude, or self righteous superiority complex is perhaps a reason to condemn them as "do-gooders", and rightly so, only a few willingly or compulsorily have criminal intent. Posit, despising people you never knew and transferring that to the present, through anecdotal story-telling is nothing but....well...racist. and I understand it as an effort to improve, not only your life but those involved in your life. Unfortunately, you harbor a lot of pain and anguish fed from hardships of the past. Many classes of people have been oppressed in the past such as the mentally handicapped, who suffered forced sterilization out of the "do-good" concept of Eugenics. That program is gone and so is the oppression of aboriginal people. It is a real crime that those wielding power in the interests of aboriginals have more concern for the preservation of the institutional structure, and the benefits they feel they deserve ad infinitum are out of the same "know-best" do-gooder attitude that helps as much as any self-righteous do-gooding has helped in the past. And I agree the tribunal is a joke, an attempt to bring "awareness" to an already preconceived "truth". There is no attempt today at cultural genocide except in the minds of those who need reason to make claim to the prosperity of others and who live myopically in the past. Aboriginals can keep their culture alive by living it but I am sure they wish the benefits of modern convenience as well. They will have to blend or the aboriginal culture will forever be preserved in the fromaldehyde of legislation, forever a curiosity in a jar.

The creation of the department of Multi-culturalism is an excellent demonstration of how individuals of considerable intellect can be blinded by ideology, and Turdeau seemed to have fallen prey to his idealistic visions. I was reading about Tommy Douglas who thoroughly embraced Hitler and his National socialist movement for a time until he visited Germany and saw Hitler's brand of socialism in practice. Why would he support things like Eugenics and sterilization being of such superior intelligence? Perhaps for that exact reason. He loved the power and sway he had over other men too much, I believe. He liked to portray himself as the representative of the common man. Fighting for the little guy, neglecting that the little guy, the individual, is drowned and nullified in the collective. Was it his love of humanity or his love of power that was prime in his political ambition? A display of one's love of power never got anyone ahead but cloaked with a love of humanity lays the world at your door - but there is a lot of competition for power out there. Both Turdeau and Douglas, in my opinion, had a very dim view of the little guy, who was obviously too stupid to help himself and needed great leadership and direction and the help of the State to live the simplest of lives. Multiculturalism? Mark Steyn has the right idea about it. How can culture be legislated and remain vibrant and alive? Preserved in the formaldehyde of legislation, it stagnates.

Hear! Hear! Perhaps the new director of the CMA will encourage change. He has some rather different views and recognizes the inadequacies of the current monopoly.

Why do you dislike Canadians so much?

I have to agree with geoffery on this one. The solution is assimilation. I believe that because it is inclusive and makes the individual feel part of the bigger picture. All other solutions are exclusive and divisive. We cannot ignore the future and live in the past by placing cultures in formaldehyde. What should the future hold? It is up to all of us to create it. There will never be a Canadian culture as long as we are divided into pockets of minority groups sanctioned to be sovereign. Governments; here we go again, are about force. If Europeans had not ventured from their continent Indian nations would have expanded and had their own tribal wars as soon as there became enough of a populace to concern themselves with property, perhaps committing tribal genocide or assimilation of smaller tribes themselves. This is the nature of the collective, and government is the agency that mobilizes and enforces the collective will, or the assigned or enforced representative of the collective will. When I see a website such as that posted by vagabond I know it is entirely about race. The individual has no concept of private property and it is only when the individual can own property and not have it threatened by government that he has stability and can be productive, thus creating an atmosphere where productivity is encouraging and plenty can be created. It is true that his lands were stolen centuries ago but they did not inhabit all of the continent. They had their areas and they fought for them among, not only Euopeans, but themselves. What culture or civilization would they have created left to their own devices? Is that what the crying is about? Well governments have a tendency to wish to expand themselves, if not outside their borders then within them, whether, as it was centuries ago, by divine right or parliamentary decree, or revolution. The argument of stolen property would replace the Czar in Russia, and various other monarchies around the world, and find the Catholic church without real estate. Unfortunately or fortunately depending upon your view, there is enough force and collective will to maintain the existing structure. It is forever changing, whether it changes by force or as a co-operative evolutionary process depends today upon how well governments are held to respect private property. They haven't in the past and vigilance is necessary to have them do so in the present and the future.

What makes you think our government treats us any better than you? They steal our property and give it to you. You of course might not consider it our property they are stealing form us but we think it is because they tell us that. You should get a handle on how property becomes "property" or at least how it really should become property. And whether or not it is public, communal or private property. Governments have not learned to respect private property although there still is some semblance of the concept in America, that concept is gradually disappearing as well. So don't worry the State will be the great equalizer.

Still haven't seen "Sicko". Does it say Canada's health care system is number one? It is rated better than the American system but I wouldn't trust the ratings of a socialist organization to judge anything with even a hint of private or capitalist-for-profit flavour to be superior - too much of a conflict of interest. The problem with western medicine is it was entirely swayed by scientific medical advances and became entirely about science when, at least in my view, medicine is as much an art as a science.

You are most likely right. Aboriginals would have to agree to abolish the Indian Act and the obligations of the government. It would be good if aboriginals did so. They could then contribute to the creation of a Canadian culture. Right now they are not allowed. They have to be brought around to the understanding that being given everything is certain death. I think that is evident judging the conditions seen on most reserves. I believe some have understood that and attempt to become self sufficient or are already self-sufficient. It is like our health care system where the institutional structure is more important than the people it is supposed to serve and those receiving benefit won't allow any meaningful change. The defenders of the status quo are the power brokers who tell the rest of the people what to think. What do the natives think for the most part? I believe it is that Canada owes them a living.